Protecting your customers may lead to big penalties in today's police state

Ladar Levison had a thriving business. His encrypted email service was heavily used by corporate users that valued protecting their trade secrets. The Obama administration, however, stepped in and crushed this American success story.

I. Feds Demand Lavabit Hand Over Keys to All its Corporate Customers' Communications, Opening the Door for Corporate Espionage

Ladar Levison was forced to abandon his thriving email business to protect his users from spying by the Obama administration. [Image Source: D Magazine]

In the aftermath, one of the Snowden reports carelessly showed his email -- revealing he had a Lavabit address. Now President Obama and his bipartisan backers had a new victim to sink the teeth of the judicial system into.

Mr. Levison was ordered not just to hand over Mr. Snowden's encryption keys, but the keys of all of his users -- every single one.

Mr. Levison was faced with a tough choice. He could give the government the keys, which federal officials could potentially use to conduct corporate espionage on behalf of their campaign donors without the victims or public ever knowing. That was choice A. Or he could defy the order and face imprisonment under the provision of 50 USC § 1861/18 USC § 2703 (which define the federal government's rights to unconstitutional seizures) and 50 USC § 1881a (which defines the punishment for exercising ones Constitutional rights and refusing to comply to said seizures). That was choice B.

Instead he opted for choice C -- to act in civil disobedience while being careful not to directly defy the legal statutes of the USA PATRIOT Act. He allegedly ducked out his back door when he first saw federal agents coming to his home, denying them a chance to deliver a subpoena.

The Obama administration's FISA court was not happy with this action.

It held Mr. Levison in contempt of court and authorized the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) to install malware on Mr. Levison's servers -- R -- and fine him $5,000 for every day he did not turn over his customers' encryption keys.

Mr. Levison exercised his Constitutional rights and waited two days, before defiantly delivering a printout of the keys printed in size 4 font. But by then he'd already shut down his business and purged his servers, leaving nothing for the feds to collect.

Mr. Levison stated in a brief release, "[I refuse] to become complicit in crimes against the American people."

The Obama administration was outraged at that refusal. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) briefly considered seeking his imprisonment, according to sources. But after Mr. Levison collected $100,000 USD in donations to support a legal defense, the DOJ declined to seek prison time for Mr. Levison's acts of civil disobedience. Instead it opted to just punish Mr. Levison with the financial penalty stated in the original contempt order -- a fine of $10,000 USD.

Mr. Levison refused to accept even that punishment. He has appealed the fine to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, arguing his Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure were violated. He asserts that his business was founded on U.S. privacy and that the government was behaving illegally when it order him to violate all of his users privacy by handing over everyone's encryption keys, in order to allegedly target just one user.

The DOJ is fighting back, looking to nail Mr. Levison with the $10,000 fine. In a just-filed appellate brief it writes:

Mr. Levison [illegally] alerted all of Lavabit’s users, including the target of the investigation, that Lavabit was engaged in litigation with the government and that, rather than comply with the court’s orders, he decided to shut down his business.

The pen/trap order and the search warrant issued by the district court were plainly lawful. The information used by Lavabit to encrypt communications on its systems, what has been referred to as SSL or encryption keys, was both necessary to the installation and operation of a lawfully ordered pen register/trap and trace device as well as subject to disclosure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703. As such, it was within the district court's power to compel the production of those keys.

It remains to be seen whether the appellate judges will uphold the $10,000 fine. But for now the worst is presumably over and Mr. Levison can celebrate victory to an extent. He won. His client's data is safe from the Obama's administration's PATRIOT Act seizure attempt. And despite that he's a free man.

Bi-partisan elections are what's wrong. People don't choose their candidates. They're forced to pick between 2. Believe it or not, I find Obama the lesser of two evils, both times he was elected, even though I despise a lot of his policies.

You ARE part of the problem. Did you even ask yourself if he was qualified? He was a Congressman for like 100 something days, and before that did NOTHING that remotely indicated he could run a snowball stand, much less the country.

You think Romney was peachy? Really? Romney knows how to run a business, not a country. You're probably one of those people who thinks Fox News is a legitimate source of information, rather than the TV equivalent of the herpes you pick up from a she-male hooker behind a dumpster in Bangkok.

I'm not the problem. The people who enable the same election system and same corrupt politicians (not just the president) to run this country are the problem. Lobbying is the problem. GE, Apple getting out taxation while the middle class pays the way, is the problem. The fact that being a politician is now a CAREER, rather than a RESPONSIBILITY is the problem. When you blame the faults of the entire system on one man, you clearly demonstrate your ignorance to the matter. Any opinion you set forth after that statement means next to nothing. You're just more noise drowning out anybody with a worth opinion in the matter.

Don't change the subject. You said Romney had no idea how to run the country, but I just demonstrated he has 100% more executive experience than Obama. So how exactly was Obama qualified again?

But even this post from you shows that you're a typical low-information voter. Romney added more jobs, balanced the budget, and slashed unemployment when he was Governor. Oh and he worked to institute a universal healthcare system that actually works. Compare that to the universal clusterfu$k that is Obamacare.

Both options were bad. Live with the devil you know, or live with the evil you scarcely knew (unless you lived in Mass.) So EasyC went for Obama because he already had first-hand experience living under Romney rule, and you called him an idiot and "low-information voter" for it.

You don't know when to cut your losses and shut up. Here, want a ball gag?

He never actually said what "sucked" about living in Mass. His post was as reasoned at a 5'th graders. You're just siding with him because he's a fellow idiot Liberal.

Also just because someone on the Internet says they lived somewhere, doesn't necessarily mean it's truth.

quote: Both options were bad.

And that's your opinion. I happen to believe Romney would be a better President than Obama. But that's hardly a glowing endorsement, seeing as how Obama has set the bar so low almost anyone else would make the cut.

Obama isn't just the worst President we've ever had, he's one of the worst people on the planet. Everyone who cast a vote for him should be shamed and made to live in fear for the rest of their lives.

Now you've gone and ruin it with the link! As Freakie said earlier I just really ignore Reclaimer now because for the most part Freakie is right about him. There is not "discussing" the issue at hand with him. My suggestion is to let it be. He isn't going to change, want to, nor know to.

quote: "HEY EVERYONE! LOOK! I HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE OF A 10 YEAR OLD AND THE MATURITY OF ONE TOO. WATCH ME ACT LIKE A MORON WHILE I SHOVE MY HEAD UP MY ASS WHENEVER SOMEONE HAS AN OPINION I DON'T LIKE"

Basic summary of the way Reclaimer77 is acting. Props to those keeping a level head in the "conversation".

He's not the one who isn't backing up his assertions in this conversation, the Obama voters are. So far, I've heard how Mass sucked, FOX News sucks, Romney sucks... but I've yet to hear one iota of WHY they suck.

I can tell you why Obama sucks.

1) He forced the ACA on the country, and it's now a shit storm, and people are losing their health care.2) He's mishandled Iran to the point that Israel is going to probably end up bombing them.3) He's continued EVERY policy that his supporters hated Bush for.4) He pushed through massive stimulus as soon as he got into office.5) His IRS singled out opposing political groups, and got a pass.6) His DOJ has investigated/intimidated journalist from Fox, AP, etc.7) He mishandled a deadly attack on a US embassy, a possible cover up.8) Unemployment is still up.9) Solendra as well as other solar companies.

The list goes on and on. Name one other president with a rap sheet that even comes close to this? And people like you and the other guy have let him skate on ALL of it.

We've all made errors in judgement when voting, but at some point you have to admit this is getting pretty insane.

You make a great point. I don't even think Hoover was that bad by comparison...and the Great Depression started under his watch (not that he really was at fault for that). Yet Obama got elected and Hoover did not. Just saying.

1. "He didn't know" ACA would have lost so many people their health care.2. "He didn't know" what he would do with Iran would cause such problems.3. "He didn't know" about all of those policies and that they were still continuing.4. Okay, this one is correct.5. "He didn't know" the IRS was singling out his opposition.6. "He didn't know" about the DOJ intimidating the journalists.7. "He didn't know" about the US embassy.Y'know what, I'm stopping here.

I think the point has been made. Either it's complete BS that we keep hearing false excuses about he's not involved with all of the shitstorms occurring (obviously, I'm the camp that thinks this) ... or he's the most completely and totally incompetent President of all time. How could he have allowed himself to be so completely unaware of all of this? Even the left's excuses make him look bad. Yet people will still stand up and defend him.

Democrats are not the friends to the common man that they are made out to be. I think this revelation is too much for the individuals who typically lean that way to bear, so they ignore it.

quote: Democrats are not the friends to the common man that they are made out to be. I think this revelation is too much for the individuals who typically lean that way to bear, so they ignore it.

Interesting bit of information that I learned this week in our training for lab work in pharma. When the first law was passed to help protect consumers against fraudulent drugs and harmful food additives only 8 Democrats voted against it. That was back in the early 1900's, seems the Party for the common man even back then was not so supportive as it should have been.

Notice how they're talking about everything besides Obama's failed record? Shame on me for once again letting Liberal morons set the tone of a debate. Romney's theoretical Presidential record is not what should be relevant here, it's certainly not as germane as the proven disaster Obama has been as President.

But this is typical of the pro-Obama crowd. The President refuses to take responsibility for anything, so why should they? Blame Bush, blame Fox News, flame Romney or the corporations or the banks, whoever, but absolutely NEVER hold Obama accountable for anything. Oh heavens no, we can't do that.

quote: I happen to believe Romney would be a better President than Obama. But that's hardly a glowing endorsement, seeing as how Obama has set the bar so low almost anyone else would make the cut.

Without a doubt he would have been, even if the bar was high and obama wasn't the failure that he is. By all accounts Romney should have won. The entire obama campaign was one big lie, including his ACA promise...and Romney didn't resort to mudslinging during his campaign; not even indirectly thru the pacs, indicating that he possessed above-average integrity.

This country is full of dismissive idiots who associate left wing politics with being "intelligent", yet fail to note that history is riddled with plenty of examples of just how bad left wing politics are. They spend their time in school being taught what to think and more than half of them emerge full believers.

It's somewhat refreshing that at least a select few republicans are operating in line with what they should be - limited government and a focus on personal liberty and responsibility. Let's hope that the ACA can help us purge the liberal communists from America once and for all.

You guys are hilarious. You actually think that the President runs the country! Both of you need to get out more.

While both of you are here peeing in each other corn flakes a thousand guys just like the Koch brothers are financing the efforts needed to formulate public opinion amongst people, JUST LIKE YOU, all across America. They are financing lobbyists, think tanks, political action groups to further erode any semblance of control the American people, JUST LIKE YOU, have within the political system in the U.S. They are literally buying up Congressman, Senators and Governors across the country to enlist them in helping them steal what is left of the wealth of the middle class, people JUST LIKE YOU.

Nope. Romney wasn't peachy at all. He simply knows how to run a business--as you so eloquently pointed out. Given that we're 17 TRILLION in debt--and counting--I would that that qualification, alone, should have placed him at the top of the pile for "most qualified candidates". Call me crazy because I think a man with demonstrated fiscal responsibility should be put in charge. *facepalm*

There is no effective way to change the system, and no one--apart from those in washington--has the ability to fix it. The system runs on a self-perpetuating mix of special-interest groups, lobbying and self-interested politicians.

I don't side with any political party. I hate all of them equally. If you want to effect change in the form of 3rd parties getting put in charge, lobby to have the Primary and Secondary elections reversed. Tell your representative/senator that you want to vote for a party in the Primary and a person in the Secondary. It's the only way to get around the debacle that has invariably given the American public a choice between "the lesser of two evils" for the last 25 years.

P.S.It would be refreshingly nice to be able to pick from 3-6 candidates from the winning party--rather than just a choice between who brown-nosed & kow-towed their respective party-line dogma the best.

quote: Nope. Romney wasn't peachy at all. He simply knows how to run a business--as you so eloquently pointed out. Given that we're 17 TRILLION in debt--and counting--I would that that qualification, alone, should have placed him at the top of the pile for "most qualified candidates". Call me crazy because I think a man with demonstrated fiscal responsibility should be put in charge. *facepalm*

You might want to look at the typical MO for Bain Capital. Find a company with low debt and issue a crap load of leveraged debt, collecting management fees along the process. Then watch it crumble.

Not quite what I would call 'running a business.' More like "raiding the cookie jar."

In contrast, crazy Ross Perot built EDS into a billion dollar company. That was actually running a business.

Did Bain manage to SAVE any companies? Staples? Home Depot? Sometimes a company is run SO BAD that all there is to do is sell of it's assets and kill it. But for all the negative you spouted your forgot the positives.

To be fair, Reclaimer was talking more of the first (2008) election, when Obama ran against McCain, and you responded with Romney, who was the 2nd (2012) re-election of Obama.

Obama was elected in 2008 for no bigger reason than backlash to the W. Bush era. Doesn't really matter who would've run as the Republican candidate that year, they didn't stand a chance against ANY strong Democratic candidate. Hell, they could've put someone in the running who had a ton of skeletons in their closet, and that person still woudl've won (and they damn near did, with Hillary).

In 2012, Obama had 4 years in office, had successfully rammed through the ACA (Obamacare), as well as a bunch of other social programs (phone giveaways, etc), and basically bought the election by buying votes with freebies. If he'd been judged on his REAL accomplishments, or if we had seen the rollout of Obamacare debacle we're seeing now, before that election, I doubt he would have won.

This is why Democrats are going crazy right now, because they're seeing themselves backed into a corner....either Obama "fixes" the mess (which I can't see happening, without violating the law), or they're forced to vote in favor of the Republican-led bill that's to be voted on tomorrow. Anyone who opposes it, irregardless of whether it's a good and sensible change to the law or not, will be looked upon as an obstructionist, and their popularity with the voters will suffer.

In fact, I suspect that the Republican party is going to gain back a lot of the popularity they lost during the budget idiocy in October, with this bill in November. Time will tell!

Romney's campaign financial adviser, Frank VanderSloot, runs a pyramid scheme that's based on the type of patent medicine scamming that would have gotten him tarred and feathered years ago.

He abuses the courts to sue anyone who even reports on his corruption. But, the "conservative" Obama haters turn a conveniently blind eye to this sort of chicanery or twist themselves into pretzels to try to absolve Romney from blame for clearly endorsing it.

...and it's also people like you who are the problem. A paragon of the willing, pliable masses who are only too happy to be spoon-fed whatever they are given by the mass-media.

Just the fact that you see the 2012 presidential election as ONLY a choice between Romney and Obama...speaks volumes to why the system continues to run in perpetuity and refuses to change. Anyone who assumes that an individual who did not vote for candidate A automatically voted for candidate B--is part of the problem. This is not a bi-polar issue; this is a bi-partisan issue. If you cannot fathom the grey area between that which is most publicly covered...then you are part of the problem.

Hey! Idiot! WHAT WERE THE CHOICES????? Given choices between tweedledum and tweedledee is no choice, is it? In my lifetime there has only ever been ONE viable third party candidate. I admit to voting for H.Ross Perot. Even with all his money, even with a clear pro-business platform, even with all that you say that you are for... That the tea-partiers are for... The Republicans are all for... Even then he couldn't get much more than enough to but make a small profit on the 'buy the presidency' exercise.

You know there are other parties to choose from, or just not vote at all. I know people spew this nonsense about "it's your duty to vote" but that's complete nonsense. You have absolutely no duty to force yourself to vote for someone you don't want to take office.

That's such a tired and worn out argument. Ken Cuccinelli lost because the voters didn't like particular product he was peddling. It just so happens that his product was less appealing to people when provided with another alternative. Ken also could've "won" if he was the only one the ballot.

If my only option were to buy a Volt, and I needed an automobile, I'd buy a Volt. If there are other options, I'll evaluate all of them and make the best choice for me. Thank god for me, I have more options. Political candidates are no different.

If you're blaming Libertarians for McAuliffe being elected you should also be "blaming" Democrats. If you're upset that your party lost, you should be looking inward for how to better sell your ideas to the public in the future.

They've pretty much entirely shunned their Conservative base, which is why the Libertarian party and "Tea Party" has been seeing it's growth. Conservatives like me are beyond frustrated and are leaving the party in droves.

Unfortunately no such dichotomy appears to exist within the Democrat party and their base. They are unified in their desire to transform America into a "Progressive" (socialist) state.

That's largely because the Libertarians have absorbed quite a few of the old school blue dog voter base. We will continue to grow until they drop the Democrat or Liberal moniker and just label themselves as Progressives or Socialists.

It will make spotting your enemy much easier. You're going to have to kick out the bad Republicans, too.

Always trying to vote for "lesser evil" and complaining that you still get evil and nothing can be done about it. How stupid is that?

That "don't waste your vote" strategy is the optimum strategy for the case where you have only one last election and no future elections, but this is NOT the case for the US elections. When there are future elections not too far away the "wasted votes" become a signal to the voters, losers and winners.

The day more than 10% vote for someone else, even if that someone doesn't win is the day the D and R will pay a bit more attention. As it is, between the two of them they've got about 98% of the votes. So why should they bother to change things much? Change too much and they might lose votes.

p.s. the Libertarians are pretty stupid too - always complaining about Big Government. Hey stupid people, it's quality not quantity that's the problem. If you don't know what the problem really is how are you going to fix things? Small Corrupt Gov + Big Corrupt Corps will screw you over just as much as Big Corrupt Gov if not more. Especially since many of your nice "Amendments" and Acts e.g. FOIA only apply to the government and not corporations. Corporations don't even have to bother holding elections to let the "serfs" vote for Twiddledumb and Twiddledumber. If one day you find yourself living in a Modern Day Company Town where the Corps own almost everything, you might find the First Amendment doesn't help you as much anymore.

Agreed. The American people would have been sold down the river within the first two years had Romney made it into office. Obama is a lot of things, and like all politicians hasn't always spoken the truth, but Romney is a compulsive liar, and worse yet cares little that people know it. Mark of a true sociopath. It was getting so bad news outlets were running out of manpower just trying to keep up with the fact checking they knew had to be done every time he opened his mouth.

If you found Obama lesser of two evils compared to Romney, you apparently manage to NOT do any research into Obama's past, his associations, or his actions/words. You chose a man that put us 7 TRILLION further in debt, Had 8%+ enemployment for FOUR YEARS, Bribed congress people to pass Obamacare, and ran on a campaign platform of wealth redistribution. All the while being caught in bold faced lies or simply not knowing what was going on. How the slaves LOVE the plantation now. Your statement is appalling in it's mental sloth.

The lesser of two evils?? How did you come to that? He is a socialist devil it doesn't get any more evil than Obama he is the biggest fraud to ever violate the law of this land. He hates America and is systematically destroying it. How anyone could vote for him the second time is beyond belief?? Anyone who votes for an obvious lair is indeed the problem. Ron Paul was the only choice for voters with a brain.

C'mon Reclaimer, you have to ask that? (I know, rhetorical and all that)

Look at how many imbeciles voted for Clinton, Bush (2nd term), McCain, Romney and Obama.

Look at television. Look at shopping centers. Listen to the music broadcast on the airwaves. Look in schools. Look in businesses. Look down the street and in the parks. Listen to the "rights" movements going on right now.

Soak it all in. America is dead because we have no citizens willing to fight for what it once was.

The nouveau-thinking these days is what can we make America into for all of us! Be damned the old ways. Be damned the Old, battered and worn Constitution. Look forward to Progress and Progressivism. Embrace the collective and shun the individual!

Please, apply needed time/effort to comprehend a concept, before you start bashing/worshiping it.

Constitutions around the world are made to either create obligations for the government to provide for the people (positive rights), or to restrict government actions, as in what they can't do to the people (negative rights). The US constitution is centered around "negative rights", unlike many foreign counterparts.

Ironically, it is your party that typically advocates restrictions for the government.

That being said, it's sad to see this country being controlled like a prison yard - divide the mob and occupy them fight each other. Or they will focus on the real oppressor.